a quick question, can Prince William (or any other heir to the throne) marry someone who converted from Roman Catholic church to the Anglican church ?

Yes, the Act of Settlement just stipulates the spouse cannot be Roman Catholic. Which is why an earlier poster suggested the spouse could convert just prior to the wedding, and revert to Catholicism the day after.
.

Isn't it too inconvenient to pass sixteen necessary laws in sixteen countries? I think that Charles III (or George VII) is going to reign quietly, be content with making Camilla his Queen, and leave the task of changing the Act of Settlement to William V.

As for me, I don't think that the ban on Roman Catholics makes much sense today; the best way possible would have been to repeal it before the adoption of the Statue of Westminster. I suppose that any attempt ot change the laws of succession in the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms, especially Canada and Australia, is going to stir up Republican sentiment.

Well, that strikes me as a rather poor excuse for upholding discrimination. If anything, the existence of this sort of blatant discrimiation with no real relevance to the 21st century is the sort of nonsense that would encourage republicans to want a grown-up sort of government. What if the Act of Settlement had specified Jews rather than Catholics? Or had specified that spouses with brown eyes weren't acceptable or something?

Republicans are going to seize any excuse to claim that the monarchy is outdated and worthless; I don't think that tactic should be the one that stops the various governments from trying to eliminate unnecessary discrimination.

Well, that strikes me as a rather poor excuse for upholding discrimination. If anything, the existence of this sort of blatant discrimiation with no real relevance to the 21st century is the sort of nonsense that would encourage republicans to want a grown-up sort of government. What if the Act of Settlement had specified Jews rather than Catholics? Or had specified that spouses with brown eyes weren't acceptable or something?

...

Erm... Yes, what is a quaint oddity for me is a blatant discrimination for republicans. Still I think it is too complicated to effect a change in the laws of succession.

Isn't it too inconvenient to pass sixteen necessary laws in sixteen countries? I think that Charles III (or George VII) is going to reign quietly, be content with making Camilla his Queen, and leave the task of changing the Act of Settlement to William V.

As for me, I don't think that the ban on Roman Catholics makes much sense today; the best way possible would have been to repeal it before the adoption of the Statue of Westminster. I suppose that any attempt ot change the laws of succession in the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms, especially Canada and Australia, is going to stir up Republican sentiment.

There is no question the Act of Settlement needs a thorough review and possible amendment by Parliament. The trouble is there are many subsequent acts and precedents that followed which would require new laws. In addition, the role of the Anglican Church and the Crown would have to be redefined, and perhaps most importantly, the rights of the Catholic descendants of the House of Stuart would have to be addressed to prevent legal challenges to the future succession.

Politically, there would be much fear that addressing all of these very charged issues would result in republicanism and momentum for the abolishment of the monarchy. Given all of these obstacles, I doubt there will be any change for years to come.

Well, other countries have managed to change succession laws without parades of people coming out of the woodwork to claim that if only their ancestor had been allowed to be king or queen back in 1429 they'd be the rightful claimant now. Britain has survived a few of those episodes already (and they made for some interesting diversions in our history lessons at school!). I'm afraid that insisting on sticking in the past (no Catholic spouses, males succeeding before older female siblings) is going to run the risk of making the monarchy appear badly out of touch, which has also been fuel for republicans.

It doesnt have to be chagned seperatly in 16 different countries. There is a special westminster convection or something that allowes the change to happen in one country and affect others. I am pretty sure something like that exits. I think Charles will try to change the Act. He will definitly pressure the future PM about it. Protocal would still dictate that who ever the spouse is has to take part in anglican services and traditions and raise their kids anglican.

It doesnt have to be chagned seperatly in 16 different countries. There is a special westminster convection or something that allowes the change to happen in one country and affect others. I am pretty sure something like that exits. ...

Actually, the opposite thing exists. From the Statute of Westminster: 'And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...'

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE DUKE OF KENT CAN STILL BE IN LINE TO THE THRONE. THE DUCHESS IS NOW A CATHOLIC WHICH MUST EXCLUDE HIM AS HAVING A CATHOLIC WIFE EXCLUDES PRINCE MICHAEL.

This has been discussed elsewhere in these Forums, but the simple answer is that the Act of Settlement disbars a person from the succession if they "marry a papist". When the Duke of Kent married his wife, she was a Protestant. The Act has no provision disbarring a person who's spouse converts to Roman Catholicism after the wedding.

So Prince Michael married a Catholic and forfeited his place, the Duke of Kent's wife became a Catholic after they were married so the Duke's position is unaffected.
.

Is there a list around that has the Swedes, Danes etc on as well? Is King Constantine listed in Sucession?

If you check out the wikipedia link I provided above, it lists both the Swedes and the Danes - Queen Anne-Marie is placed 219th - far above her husband.

There is a list out there that lists Constantine as well, but I think it was last updated in 2001, as it is a lot of people to keep track of. Then he was at number 472, now he's at 420 (Wikipedia) so he's moving upwards